MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KARNAL Vs. JANAK RAJ AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.1 was assessed to house-tax and a demand was raised upon him by virtue of Annexure P-1. But the said respondent failed to deposit the tax and proceedings under Section 95 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 for recovery of the same were initiated against him. By virtue of the impugned order the petition moved by the petitioner under Section 95 of the Act has been dismissed.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that there is merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order certainly does not give any reason much less reasons which can stand the test of judicial scrutiny. The impugned order is thus set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Special Judicial Magistrate, Karnal to consider the petition moved by the petitioner afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties.